Delhi High Court: A criminal revision petition was filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“JJ Act”) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 16-09-2023 (“impugned order”) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-01 (Children Court), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (“ASJ”) in criminal appeal whereby the appeal against two orders dated 28th October, 2022 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board-III, Delhi (hereinafter “JJB”) was dismissed. Chandra Dhari Singh, J., held that upheld the impugned order dated 16-09-2023 passed by the ASJ in Criminal Appeal as it correctly upheld the findings of JJB and no jurisdictional error, procedural irregularity or legal infirmity was demonstrated that would warrant interference by this Court.
On 04-09-2022, the petitioner lodged a missing person report regarding his cousin who had failed to return home after meeting an acquaintance. Following persistent efforts by the petitioner, an FIR under Section 365 IPC was registered on 05-09-2022. Subsequent investigation, including CCTV analysis, led to the arrest of the acquaintance, his son (CCL), and his nephew. During interrogation, the accused disclosed that a financial dispute had escalated into murder, wherein CCL retrieved a firearm and shot upon his father’s instruction. The deceased’s body was disposed of in Gang Nahar, Ghaziabad, and evidence was destroyed. Following these revelations, Sections 302, 201, and 34 IPC were added to the case.
Since CCL was above 16 years of age, a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act was required to determine whether he should be tried as an adult. The petitioner sought such an assessment, arguing that the premeditated nature of the crime, CCL’s active role, and his attempts to destroy evidence indicated criminal maturity. However, the JJB, vide order dated 28-10-2022, granted bail to CCL under Section 12 of the JJ Act and held that he lacked the requisite mental and physical capacity to be tried as an adult. The petitioner appealed against this order, asserting that the assessment was flawed, the prosecution was not given a fair opportunity to present its case, and the age determination was dubious due to multiple recorded birth dates.
The Additional Sessions Judge, in the impugned order dated 16-09-2023, dismissed the appeal, holding that JJB had followed due process and relied on the Preliminary Assessment Report, Social Investigation Report, and Physical-Mental Drug Assessment Report before concluding that CCL should not be tried as an adult. The court also upheld the bail order, finding no procedural irregularity.
The Court examined whether the JJB had correctly determined CCL’s age, conducted a proper preliminary assessment, and rightly granted bail. It observed that Section 94 of the JJ Act mandates reliance on school records for age determination. In this case, multiple dates of birth were recorded in different documents; however, JJB relied on the school records, establishing CCL’s date of birth as 8th July 2005. The court upheld this determination, finding it in line with statutory provisions and rejecting the petitioner’s challenge.
Regarding the preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act, the court noted that JJB had considered expert reports that indicated CCL exhibited cognitive immaturity, poor impulse control, and an inability to fully comprehend the consequences of his actions. The reports also highlighted his lack of parental supervision and susceptibility to influence. The court found that JJB’s decision was based on a reasoned evaluation of these factors and was not a mechanical acceptance of the reports.
The Court remarked that “a perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned ASJ confined its review to assessing procedural and jurisdictional correctness, finding that the JJB had acted within its authority and in accordance with the law. The learned ASJ affirmed the JJB’s determination that CCL-SAH lacked the requisite mental and physical capacity to be tried as an adult, based on expert assessments and background reports, and upheld the grant of bail, noting the prosecution’s failure to establish any statutory exceptions under Section 12. No material irregularity, jurisdictional error, or miscarriage of justice is evident, and the petitioner’s disagreement with the conclusions does not render the order perverse or unsustainable.”
On the issue of bail, the Court reiterated that Section 12 of the JJ Act mandates the grant of bail to juveniles unless their release would bring them into association with criminals, expose them to danger, or defeat the ends of justice. The court found that neither JJB nor the ASJ had any material before them suggesting that CCL’s release would lead to such consequences. The mere seriousness of the offence was not sufficient to deny bail. The court cited precedent reaffirming the principle that bail for juveniles is the norm and that exceptions must be substantiated with evidence.
The Court also addressed the petitioner’s claim of violation of natural justice, arguing that the complainant had no absolute right to be heard in bail proceedings under the JJ Act. It held that the legislative scheme prioritizes rehabilitation over retribution and that JJB’s decision-making process did not warrant interference.
The Court found no jurisdictional error, procedural irregularity, or legal infirmity in the impugned order. It upheld the ASJ’s ruling that CCL should be tried as a juvenile and affirmed the grant of bail under Section 12 of the JJ Act. The revision petition was dismissed, and the JJB was directed to proceed with the case uninfluenced by any observations made in this judgment.
[Mohd Munib v. State, W.P.(C) 6991/2024, decided on 11-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Mr. Abhay Gupta and Ms. Muskan Jain, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Mr. Ravi Data, Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advs. Ms. Jyoti Taneja, Mr. Shantanu Sharma, Mr. Moksh Tyagi and Ms. Reny Chauhan, Advs. for Intervenors.
